Booing National Anthem ( South Stand)

A very broad thread!

I think booing taking the knee is pathetic.
I think booing the national anthem is pathetic.

Don't participate, turn your back on either, by all means.

The smallest of minorities boo the knee gesture, and the smallest of minorities booed the anthem.
Debate about either subject matter is healthy in our country, as we should have the right to express our views. It is just where and how is most appropriate that should be the consideration.

Red Faction turning their backs is not disruptive. It is a bit Mickey Mouse.
They appear a self parody, but sadly I don't think it is intentional.

The South Stand makes great noise, but I think has very little to do with RF any more.
 
indeedido said:
A very broad thread!

I think booing taking the knee is pathetic.
I think booing the national anthem is pathetic.

Don't participate, turn your back on either, by all means.

The smallest of minorities boo the knee gesture, and the smallest of minorities booed the anthem.
Debate about either subject matter is healthy in our country, as we should have the right to express our views. It is just where and how is most appropriate that should be the consideration.

Red Faction turning their backs is not disruptive. It is a bit Mickey Mouse.
They appear a self parody, but sadly I don't think it is intentional.

The South Stand makes great noise, but I think has very little to do with RF any more.
Click to expand...
Yes agree, and I wouldn't boo the anthem, but I also find turning one's back is a little cringeworthy. Not applauding or singing is enough, for me.
 
Muttley said:
Hardly a fundamental "right" is it?

And really only applicable when the stadium is full. Similar rules and restrictions are enforced in all public places where of necessity there are people in close proximity, restaurants, cinemas, trains, buses, etc.

Also, if I have bought a ticket with a good view (for example in line with the centre) why should I move because some d*ck can't put his toy town cigarette away for two hours?
Click to expand...
I didn't mention it being a fundamental right. The right of people to vape or smoke whilst in the open air is a right that the club have chosen to take away.

I visit lots of grounds throughout the season and move away from people if I'm uncomfortable with the smoke/vape cloud.

Their right to do either is still permitted in many grounds in the country.

Why is the person a d*ck because they vape?
 
Anyway, why can't we just have Jerusalem? Its not politicised in any way, and actually talks about England itself, nods to industrial landscapes and rural lands alike, and making it better. It does have religious roots of course but they are questions about Jesus etc, most of them I think we all have about religion.

My personal opinion is that it would be perfect as the national anthem, but of course it will never happen because if England don't continue to promote the King, no one else will.
 
atypical_boro said:
Yes agree, and I wouldn't boo the anthem, but I also find turning one's back is a little cringeworthy. Not applauding or singing is enough, for me.
Click to expand...
So just stand there to express your disappointment?
Turning your back feels a decent compromise to me. Shows visibly your view without being disrespectful.
I am all for being disrespectful to the monarchy but would expect respect in other cases so booing would hypocritical of me.
I'd have deffo boo'd when younger but at one point a bit younger again would have sang 😁
 
indeedido said:
A very broad thread!

I think booing taking the knee is pathetic.
I think booing the national anthem is pathetic.

Don't participate, turn your back on either, by all means.

The smallest of minorities boo the knee gesture, and the smallest of minorities booed the anthem.
Debate about either subject matter is healthy in our country, as we should have the right to express our views. It is just where and how is most appropriate that should be the consideration.

Red Faction turning their backs is not disruptive. It is a bit Mickey Mouse.
They appear a self parody, but sadly I don't think it is intentional.

The South Stand makes great noise, but I think has very little to do with RF any more.
Click to expand...
There's some false equivalence here.

Taking the knee is a political act to raise awareness and foster inclusion. Acting against it supports bigotry.

Playing the national anthem at a football match is a political act of obsequiousness. Acting against is perfectly acceptable in any legal form. It is a punch up, not down.

It's telling that the anthem has, as far as I remember, never been spontaneously sung by supporters at the Riverside during a Boro match.
 
YouAreMyBoro said:
So just stand there to express your disappointment?
Turning your back feels a decent compromise to me. Shows visibly your view without being disrespectful.
I am all for being disrespectful to the monarchy but would expect respect in other cases so booing would hypocritical of me.
I'd have deffo boo'd when younger but at one point a bit younger again would have sang 😁
Click to expand...
Well people are free to do whatever they want. The turning the back thing feels a bit 'look at me I disagree with this, go on ask me why, ask me, go on'. Just my thoughts. I find ignoring the anthem suits my own views well enough.
 
Scrote said:
There's some false equivalence here.
Click to expand...
No there is not.
Both the National Anthem and Taking the Knee are things many people respect. I would say the majority of people.
So to disrupt or boo either is in my opinion provocatively dis-respectful.

It is fine to have differing opinions, and debate and protest are things we should protect.
But you surely have to be consistent?
 
There does to appear to be a more vocal campaign if you like against the Royals in recent time, i would also its similar with the government - Let's face it, the country is on its backside and people want somebody to blame and start at the top of the tree.

You see lots of 'how much did this cost' and 'i still have pot holes in my street' etc

There is also a campaign against the royals over the whole Andrew situation, i even saw lots of things on Twitter showing Charles in photos with Jimmy Saville as if that somehow means Charles much be the same - Liverpool where chanting something similar.

Social media, podcasts allow a lot of people views to become widespread and people unhappy at their own situation can take it as a way to vent, blame, not fall in line etc hence the outcome we have with people booing, saying they are not my royal family etc.
 
clay said:
William Blake might not agree with that! He was a revolutionary, who's original poem was an anti-capitalist, anti-establishment rallying call.
Click to expand...
I've read that before, but it is very old and no one really knows for sure I don't think? But even still, its not unquestionably evident from the lyrics is it? Or at least the lyrics don't have to be interpreted that way?
 
clay said:
Vaping is banned in every league ground. It's an EFL rule, not an MFC rule.
Click to expand...
Why don’t they apply the rules and the recent anti-social message they didn’t bother mentioning vaping. The club are paying lip service to the EFL rule
 
Last edited:
indeedido said:
No there is not.
Both the National Anthem and Taking the Knee are things many people respect. I would say the majority of people.
So to disrupt or boo either is in my opinion provocatively dis-respectful.

It is fine to have differing opinions, and debate and protest are things we should protect.
But you surely have to be consistent?
Click to expand...

totally different.
one is an anti-racist gesture and booing it is racist and should be considered unacceptable (and the club says it is committed to being anti-racist).
one is about allegiance to an unelected monarch who is there thanks to an accident of birth. it is perfectly legitimate to object to that.
 
BoroMart said:
Why don’t they apply the rules and even I. The recent anti-social message they didn’t bother mentioning vaping
Click to expand...
Is it banned because of being anti social or are they using a health reason?

Many find alcohol and the results of its use anti social but it's still being sold at grounds, perhaps income trumps in this instance?
 
So many Royalists and yet to hear one coherent logical argument as to why we should be putting one particular family on a pedestal above all others beyond the vague notion they might bring money into the country from tourists (although that's impossible to quantify given tourists will of course continue to visit whether we have a royal family or not).

"Tradition" is just a vague concept that doesn't really justify anything.

So why do we need to keep on pretending they're better than everyone else? In fact the way many of them carry on I'd say they're clearly worse than your average person.

It's a strange thing to get precious about. I'm surprised more people aren't against the Kings theme tune, sorry, national anthem, than there are. It's frankly a ridiculous song, with an awful tune, that should have no place being the national anthem of of supposed modern democracy in 2023.
 
festa5 said:
So many Royalists and yet to hear one coherent logical argument as to why we should be putting one particular family on a pedestal above all others beyond the vague notion they might bring money into the country from tourists (although that's impossible to quantify given tourists will of course continue to visit whether we have a royal family or not).

"Tradition" is just a vague concept that doesn't really justify anything.

So why do we need to keep on pretending they're better than everyone else? In fact the way many of them carry on I'd say they're clearly worse than your average person.

It's a strange thing to get precious about. I'm surprised more people aren't against the Kings theme tune, sorry, national anthem, than there are. It's frankly a ridiculous song, with an awful tune, that should have no place being the national anthem of of supposed modern democracy in 2023.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I actually think the British monarchy's problem isn't quite so much that they exist, its the fact that we still treat them in a way that suggests they are somehow better and/or more deserving, and they seem completely up for that reverance themselves. I'd be all for a bicycle monarchy as the next step, if people really do want to keep them. If Charles had become King and said 'look, maybe this is the time to stop all this bowing and curtsying nonsense, I'm just one of you even if they call me King' I really think that would help preserve the monarchy and give it a more modern feel that a huge proportion of the population would buy into.

But its like they don't see any point in existing unless they're having their boots licked by the entire population, hence why they have the best PR team on the planet preserving their unshakeable/sacred status.
 
BoroPhil said:
totally different.
one is an anti-racist gesture and booing it is racist and should be considered unacceptable (and the club says it is committed to being anti-racist).
one is about allegiance to an unelected monarch who is there thanks to an accident of birth. it is perfectly legitimate to object to that.
Click to expand...
One punches up at authority and power, one punches down at the suppressed and powerless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top